Yeah that's the thing, quantum key distribution can not prove who is on the other end!

It fundamentally can not guarantee that the line is intact before you start communicating. You can in theory detect a break that starts after, but one that happened before is effectively invisible.

Quantum key distribution can not do anything other than key expansion (giving you more secret bits from a few), because the only way to know who is in the other end is to have agreed to a method of validation, such as a signature algorithm (but if you trust signatures you won't care about quantum key distribution) or a shared secret (an authentication tag key). But if you have a large enough secret key, you can just use a regular symmetric encryption algorithm. Some might want forward secrecy from the quantum line, but you can get that with symmetric key ratchets like Signal uses where the ONLY benefit of quantum key distribution is that you avoid key management (but instead you maintain physical infrastructure)

it's only secure if you START OFF WITH A SHARED SECRET to authenticate the key pad and first round

Wait, really? There's no way to establish a secure connection over an insecure channel via quantum encryption?

This is neat, but quantum key distribution is stupid as hell because it's only secure if you START OFF WITH A SHARED SECRET to authenticate the key pad and first round of messages.

And if you have that then you don't need quantum encryption because you can do everything with just symmetric encryption (unless you specifically have some very weird forward secrecy requirements where it isn't approved to use asymmetric post quantum algorithms like McEliece)

Limited battery life can hinder how useful drones are in responding to disasters, inspecting infrastructure, or delivering items.

And I'm sure the surveillance and war industries are not going anywhere near it.

This is a necessary tool for wildlife monitoring and public safety in littoral environments already in my opinion.

It is a public resource created with consistent public use on public networks.

I am pretty sure that military is taking notes. As well as japanese "biologists"

Whale who has the big blowhole now?

I thought the article would be about submarine tracking, lol

Only if you use "A.I." at least 50 times in the business plan!

Super surprised this wouldn't have been implemented as a (mono) camera sensor first. Military funding anyone?

I would guess:

1. Ease of manufacture/packaging.

2.Ease of removal for install.

Yeah, but you don't get them in a single stack box, do you?

Sliding back and forth means they could bump sides and chip.

Even single stacked large tiles, sliding makes boxes break.

Like, you asked a question I answered it. If you want to argue after admitting you couldn't figure it out, I'm just going to block you and never help you again.

Stack only grippy to grippy and slippy to slippy, and it’s gonna tumble.

Not if it’s in a box, as they are from the factory.

But for one batch of tiles the stack was a bit rocky - less stable. Whereas the original stack of all facing the same direction does not rock. Apparently they are less flat or less symetric than they appear.

One side is slippy, one side is grippy.

Stack grippy to slippy, and a stack is structurally sound.

Stack only grippy to grippy and slippy to slippy, and it's gonna tumble.

It's actually quite simple to simulate with python or octave, even with a simple update scheme. Take for instance a look at https://interactivecomputergraphics.github.io/physics-simulation/, especially its "mass spring system" as a starting point.

Here there are examples on how simulate various systems from scratch.

I’d love to see updates, as you make them.

(No pressure, of course)

I’ve written something akin to what you’re looking for from scratch and it’s a project unto itself.

Hehe yeah, I would want to avoid sinking into that hole for this purpose. It's been a while since I've been doing any kind of math or physics of that kind, so it would require a lot of re-reading old text books for me to be able to build anything to begin with.

Honestly I would start 2d. 3d more than doubles the complexity.

Yes, that does also make sense for my use case, so I will start there, thanks :)

Starting with an established engine is a good idea.

I’ve written something akin to what you’re looking for from scratch and it’s a project unto itself.

Honestly I would start 2d. 3d more than doubles the complexity.

I’ve been out of the loop for a good long while, but Box2d would be my first port of call. (They also recently launched Box3d, so maybe the interaction would be familiar once you’ve finished with 2d)

No, the other commenters are right — it's between 100 and 150 depending on the angle. And it's like this because we have 50 N + 50 N on both sides of the top pulley (classic pulley thing) + 50 N more attached to it at the bottom. Kinda confusing at first, not gonna lie :)

Okay, I've found a nice picture for it. Whoever sad 150 N (with the 180° angle, less with other angles) was right, and the rest of us were wrong :)

That's actually pretty cool.

Yea that's why I said max down force, didn't want to do the math to find the resultant for a 90 degree to the left pull

More in depth

I don't think it can get as low as 100N, for that you would have to pull completely upwards. The shadow in the image implies a ceiling, so ~112N if we take 90° as the max angle. The 150N would be the only case with a completely downward force, if you pull at another angle the resulting force vector will be angled as well.

Nope. Right now the system is balanced, the rope is not being pulled just hold. To pull the weight up you need more than 50N, plus a bit more if we take into consideration the friction in the pulleys and in the rope itself.